The Resurrection Series #20

Acts of the Resurrection

We have only one book left to consider in our quest through the New Testament to find convincing evidence that early resurrection belief necessitated the colliery beliefs that either, physical regeneration is the only acceptable belief to qualify as authentic resurrection belief, or that Jesus must have been physically present on earth after the time of his death for salvation belief to be genuine. We have found not a singe reference or case which could be made for any of the above colliery beliefs that we speculate could substantiate the historical resurrection model. It has been a long task, I admit, and one that I have pondered for quite a while.

My position at the beginning of this series was to state how the current debate concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ has more to do with the religious polarization between conservative and liberal theologians then it does between Christians and atheists. There are copious amounts of literature being generated on this topic and many Christian apologists are being factory produced at evangelical colleges to present this issue in a different light then what I think is really happening. These “apologists” go out and debate atheists, skeptics, and unbelievers with the tag line of how “reasonable” their position is, and at the end of the day Christians are content and comfortable to believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. And the only reason anyone is not saved is because they are resisting the truth that is so clear to everyone.

There are power structures at play in this debate, and Christendom has a lot at stake in the Evangelical community. If people believe that their salvation is a matter of gathering all the correct information and synthesizing it correctly to produce the right beliefs then you will have a group that is easy to control and manipulate. There are good reasons why those in power and authority want us to believe that the resurrection is a historically provable event. It reinforces the power structure that gets those to disassociate goodness with rightness. If the only thing that matters in life is getting things right then we will always have to look to those who are smarter, richer, or more powerful than us, but if being good has any merit at all then our own self-appraisal and conscience must come into play, and an authentic salvation should be directed more at what makes us good rather then what makes us right.

So I am deeply concerned about the Evangelical passion to prove that the resurrection occurred historical as the Gospels testify. It concerns me because the “fruit” which comes from such a passion only seems to make good servants and not good people. So a discussion of “acts” is fitting for our final examination, for it is the “Acts of the Apostles” which seems to be the overwhelming and consistent claim to a Living God present in the wholeness of Jesus’ life and person. These first believers of Jesus gave everything for him, just as he gave everything for us, and as this tradition passes from generation to generation Christ, who is our progenitor of faith is lifted up and is given New Life. As Bultmann portrayed, “Christ is risen in the kergyma.”

Acts does have some important information, because in it we see the first followers of Jesus preaching how Jesus was raised right after the event happened. These stories will have to be taken with a grain of salt, for they are written under the same condition in which the Gospels are written under. But, if a good case can be made that right after Jesus’ death people went out and claimed that he was physically raised from the dead, then my case for a spiritual resurrection might have to be reevaluated, and the case for a historical resurrection would become stronger.

In the 2^nd chapter of Acts Peter preaches to those at Pentecost of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He says, “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him…. (quote from psalms 16) Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place on of his descendents on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact” (2:24-32). Peter quotes a verse from the Psalms to make his argument which says how the “Holy One will not see decay”.

It is important to note that no Jew at the time of Christ believed that Psalms 16 was a messianic prophecy which predicted his future resurrection. Peter for all intents and purposes is completely constructing his interpretation of Psalms 16 around what he wants to believe about Jesus. His argument itself is weak, for he claims that when Psalms 16 says how the Holy One will not see decay it means how a physical body will be regenerated and then glorified, as though this passage is left incomplete, but this is not the case. In fact the passage in Psalms 16 does complete itself, it says, “Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand” (9-11). Peter changes the phrasing of this verse to suit his needs at the moment. He changes the body resting secure to a body living in hope, because the first phrasing suggests that the body remains buried in the ground, and he leaves out the part of eternal pleasure being at the right hand, because it represents an exaltation rather then a resurrection. Thus, the Psalms passage that Peter uses is NOT an example of a resurrection prophecy. So if that is contrived then we have no reason to think that the physical resurrection is also NOT a contrivance.

 The next passage in Acts to consider is the Cornelius encounter. Peter says, “We are witnesses of everything be did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen – by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead” (10:39-41). The physical manipulation of objects by spiritual beings does not entail the physical regeneration of a corpse. Angels manipulated physical space in plenty of Biblical stories. What makes this account interesting is how it is God who causes the risen Christ to be seen. This lends more strength to the argument that the resurrection is a spiritual matter and not a historical one. Thus, Jesus was not seen by virtue of his regenerated body, or by virtue even of the fact that God raised him from the dead. He was only seen because God allowed it, which suggests to me that the author of Acts understood that the visibility of the risen Christ is only a periphery matter, and not one that has to do with the definitional understanding of what being raised from the dead is. The common understanding of “raised from the dead” was not a good enough descriptor to suggest to the audience that such an event would illicit visible sightings. It had to be added that “God caused him to be seen” to make the audience understand the sightings of the risen Lord.

Paul gives testimony of the risen Christ in Pisidian Antioch. He says, “When they had carried out all that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. But God raised him from the dead, and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people” (13:29-32). Again, we do not see an Empty Tomb or a necessary physical regeneration for the “sightings” to have taken place. But Paul does go on from here to try and make the same argument Peter did about Psalms 16. Paul’s argument is just as forced and contrived. But Paul does allow for some nuance to exist in the text that Peter is unaware of. Paul says, “For when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep, he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay” (36-37). This argument recognizes the distinction between the person and the body. It was not “David” who decayed. It was his body. So in theory, David could be raised while separated from his body. Thus, Paul’s argument can go either way.

 There are probably about ten to a dozen more references to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but none of them mention physical regeneration or speak of the resurrection outside the “raised from the dead” model which is too ambiguous to infer conclusively that this must mean a physical body walks out of a tomb or climbs out of a grave. Thus, there does not seem to exist one single New Testament argument which can be made to conclusively demonstrate that a resurrection must be physical regeneration or corporeal post-mortem appearances. So if there are good reasons to believe in a spiritual resurrection independent of the Biblical narrative then this should be the model preferred.